Over classification in Special

Education
EDUC 544
10/22/14
Alejandro Franco
Maressa McDonald
Rebecca Vail
Hayley Taitz

What is Over classification?

Over classification occurs when special

education labels are given to children

incorrectly, resulting in educational
misdiagnoses.

... many children who are placed in special

education are essentially instructional causalities
and not students with disabilities (Presidents
Commission on Excellence in Special Education
(PCESE), 2002)

(Hessels, 1997)

Over classification is DIFFERENT yet related

to OVER REPRESENTATION
e.g.: An African-American student is not

placed in SpEd BECAUSE he/she is African

American. However, as a group they are over
classified in certain eligibilities for over
classification reasons.

.This presentation focuses on WHY students may be

misclassified as needing special education

SpEd Classification Facts

Sped eligibility criteria differs from state to state, district to

district, school by school:

Federal & State Disability Categories: 13 are defined in the federal IDEA
regulations
LD: classification criteria

Because of eligibility criteria & other factors, the % of students receiving SpEd
varies state by state
EX: Colorado = 4% ; Louisiana = over 12%

2000-2001: 5.7 million children ages 6 - 21 years were eligible for

SpEd

9% of the U.S. school-age population has an IEP in 2000-

2001

(U.S. Department of Education, 2002), (NEA, 2007)

Why Does Classification

Occur?
Funding
Lack of RTI and other supports
Lack of training
SpEd initial testing referrals out of control
Fidelity

Funding
More and more studies across the nation are being

done to provide evidence that funding schemes like

special education vouchers and weighted funding
formulas increase the number of students classified for
special education services
Greene and Forster (2002, p.9), implicate the overclassification of special education as significant enough
to be a financial drag on the education system as a
whole:
"The ever-accelerating growth of special education

enrollment is becoming an urgent problem for American

education, drawing off more and more billions of dollars
that could otherwise be spent on better education for all
students."

Researchers beliefs and focus of their research is based

on the fact that special education is being used for

remedial instruction.
Bounty funding, lump funding, and voucher programs

(Cullen, 2003; Kwak, 2010; Lipscomb, 2009)

Bounty vs. Lump Funding

Bounty Funding

Schools receive state funding

based on the size of their special
education funding, thus rewarding
schools for placing students in
special education unnecessarily.
In states with the traditional
bounty system, over the last
decade the rate of special
education enrollment grew 1.24
percentage points more than it
would have if these states had
lump-sum funding systems.
The traditional bounty system
accounts for 62% of these states
total increase in special education
funding and approximately
390,000 extra students placed in
special education.

Lump Sum Funding

and Vouchers

If all bounty states had switched to

lump-sum systems in 1994-95, their
special education enrollments in 200001 would have been lower by an average
of 0.82 percentage points. This
represents roughly 258,000 students and
over $1.5 billion per year in extra
spending.
Special-education voucher programs
appear to reduce a local public schools
financial incentive to diagnose a
marginal student who is merely
struggling academically as suffering
from an SLD by offering him the chance
to leave the public school, enter a private
school, and take all of his funding with
him.
Voucher programs allow disabled
students to attend a private school,
which receives payments in the form of
full or partial tuition that would have
otherwise been directed to the
transferring students public school.

Federal Grants to States for

Special Education

Funding Final Thoughts

Congress could redirect its spending priorities

when considering how new IDEA funds

should be structured. Giving higher financial
priority to types of disability that have more
clearly objective diagnostic standards such as
autism, visual impairments, and hearing
impairments would send a clear message to
states that the federal government will not
provide infinite amounts of money for outof-control special education programs.
It would also have the beneficial effect of
directing new federal money towards
disability categories that place larger financial
burdens on schools.

Lack of RTI and Other

Supports

Problem is that more and more schools do not have RTI and SSTs in place for teachers.
the teachers involved in the process and their perceptions directly impact the effectiveness
of RTI and SSTs and the accuracy of student placement and referrals to special education.
SST plays ...a more pivotal role as federal and state regulations change and require more
of our educational systems (Lee-Tarver, 2006, p. 532).
Teacher perceptions of their familiarity with SST and RTI, adequacy of training,
qualifications to implement all play factors in consistency and accuracy in classifying
students in special education.
Changes in school practices have come about since the changes made to IDEA in 2007
which reflected concerns that students might have to fail before targeted interventions
took place and that some children were being missed who needed interventions (Tileston,
2009, p. 22).
Quite often SST has been viewed as a means to secure eligibility for special education thus
removing strugglers from general education classrooms.
They provide data needed to create evidence-based instructional and behavioral strategies
matched to student needs.
There is consistent evidence in the literature that disproportionate patterns of special
education referrals, evaluations and placements can be reduced with effective support
provided to teachers (Gravois and Rosenfield, 2006, p. 51).
However, for many teachers, the SST process is off-putting. Traditionally, the practice of
referring a student to SST has often been viewed as lengthy and labor intensive for
teachers. It has been tempting for teachers to focus their energies on proving failure
instead of providing sound interventions to the struggling learner, especially with the
growing class sizes and impacted classrooms.

Lack of Training and Too Many

Teacher Referrals

Teachers are increasingly relied on to rate students' achievement and

behavior. As a result, if their ratings are lacking in validity, it can
have serious implications for students' placement (Fierros &
Bloomberg, 2005) and subsequent well-being.
Teacher awareness and training may be avenues for improving the
accuracy of their ratings (Moore, 2008; Rivard et al., 2007). Teacher
efficacy has proven to be one of the most important factors
contributing to the validity of teacher judgments (Einarsson &
Granstroem, 2002; Shinn, Tindal, & Spira, 1987). That is, teachers
with low personal efficacy are more likely to mistakenly refer
students for special education services (Einarsson & Granstroem,
2002).
Training and practical guidance may enhance teachers' personal
efficacy and, in turn, influence the validity of their estimates.
Rivera et al. (2007) pointed out, "Teachers have a critical role to play
in the identification and management of children" (p. 645) with and
without disabilities.
Teacher ratings commonly assist in identifying learning disabilities
Even though teachers cannot specifically refer a student for special
education testing, there is a number of teachers who simply tell the
parent that all they need to do is ask for a testing referral.

Fidelity
In education, treatments and interventions tend

to be multidimensionalinvolving
consideration of not just what and how long a
practice is taught, but also how well and
highly contextually dependent.
the degree to which a

treatment/intervention is implemented as
intended
Surface Fidelity
Process Fidelity
Wait to Fail
be proactive rather than reactive

What eligibility Categories are

most affected by over
classification?
Specific learning disability:
278,697
Speech or language
impairment:
164,600
Autism:
71,825
Other health impairment:
61,309
Intellectual disabilities:
43,303
Emotional disturbance:
25,984

Visual impairment:
4,327
Orthopedic impairment:
14,261
Deafness:
3,946
Hard of hearing: 9,991
Deaf-blindness:
160
Multiple disabilities:
5,643
Traumatic brain injury:
1,771
(Enrollment breakdown in CA for individuals in
special education, 2011-2012) referenced from CDE
website

Special Education Enrollment

1995-2012

Zirkel, 2013

~Federal law does not specify how to determine if cultural and language
differences are the primary causes of the childs achievement or
behavioral difficulties~

SLD

Lack of effective teaching/

instruction

SLI

Math disability
Reading disability

ELL students
Culturally and Linguistically
Diverse Students
Change in eligibility
75% male
1995-2012: Decrease in SLD

Increased use of evidence-based

reading in schools and school
readiness screenings
RTI?
Environmental factors

Social disadvantage, inappropriate

curriculum, inadequate teaching, or
lack of positive support for learning
rather than SLD

Cultural and

Linguistically
Secondary to Autism
False Positives
Trends show a decrease

in higher grades
Tough Q: Does he or
doesnt he?
Effective Instruction?

SLD Enrollment Trends: 19952012

Zirkel, 2013

AUT

Broad eligibility

Or clause

OHI

Inattentive/ Hyperactive

Medication?
Not medically determined
health problems

Accelerated from under 4% to over

17%

SLD OHI

Internal dysfunctioning
environmental circumstance?

Litigation

ED, SLI, OHI?

Accelerated from 0.57%

of enrollment to 7.3% of
enrollment

Zirkel, 2013

Over diagnosis of ADHD?

Only a few studies have addressed
this question, & they found a trend for
potential over-diagnosis
(Bruchmuller, Margraf, & Schneider, 2011)

In a qualitative review of overdiagnosis of ADHD, Sciutto and

Eisenberg (2007) concluded that there does not appear to be
sufficient evidence to definitely conclude that ADHD is
systematically overdiagnosed

ID and ED
ID

ED

Poverty, Inherent

History

differences
Culutral Bias

ELL
African-American

*Black*

Culturally and

Linguistically
Diverse
CDC & Prevention
estimates a prevalence
rate = app 1%

African-American

*Black*
Minorities

Cultural bias
76% male
Unexplained Bx

Implications of Over
Classification
Dead End
LRE and FAPE
Lack of consistency of services
Contributes to a Negative School

Environment

Controversy with the current

classification system:
Dichotomous decision
(y/n)
Disabilities can exist on a

broad continua in which

there are no clear
demarcations between
those who have/dont have
the disability (point or 2
discrepancy = in SPED)
There are some children

who are not clearly labelable as they do not meet

the full criteria, but the
question raised is: should
these children receive less
in the way of provision just
because a label has not
been attached? (Lauchlan
& Boyle, 2007, p. 41)

Labeling &
Mislabeling
Huge potential

negative
implications

Stigmatization,

bullying, reduced
opportunities in
life,
misclassification,
lowered
expectations

Controversy with the current

classification system:
Eligibility determination
= judgmental
Judgemental categories: not

easy to label and identify, but

require professional
judgement such as SLD & ED
...classification in school
systems is a messy process
influenced by many
individuals and conducted in
an environment of rationed
resources. (McLaughlin et. al,
2006, p. 46)
... we do not observe
dysfunctional behavior: rather
we observe behavior that we
label as dysfunctional, on the
basis of a set of values which
we apply in a professional
capacity (and which may not
be shared by others in our
field). (Gillman, Heyman, &
Swain, 2000, p. 402)

Ambiguity of labels:
Accepted definition of

Aspergers Syndrome
Lack of clarity,

confusion, and diverse

practices among
educators, problems of
definitions and diverse
opinions

Accepted definition of

dyslexia

Teachers, educational

psychologists, and other

educators varied in their
definition

ADHD: some say it

doesnt exist!
Dr. Saul

Controversy with the current

classification system:
Reliability
Differentiating between SPED

categories (e.g. LD or ID) and

other classifications such as
slow learners, economically
disadvantaged, and at risk for
poor educational outcomes =
difficult process
Reasons include:

overlapping characteristics
variations in teacher tolerance
for student diversity
differences in screening practices
& placement practices among
districts
variations in the quality of
assessment measures used by
professionals
For LD: Diagnosis of dyslexia is
not stable in elementary years

Disproportionate minority
representation
Childs race &

ethnicity are
significantly related to
the probability that
he/she will be
inappropriately
identified as disabled
Commonly suggested
reasons:
poverty
discrimination/cultural

bias in referral and

assessment
unique factors related to
race or ethnicity

Positive Features of
Classification
Diagnosis/labeling leads to treatment, access to

resources
Provides structure for passage of legislation
Basis for allocation of monies to establish educational
services for students with disabilities
Labeling can provide people with a social identity; a
sense of belonging to a group
Labels provide comfort to children and families by
explaining their difficulties
Labels allow professionals to communicate clearly
Raises awareness & promotes understanding of
particular difficulties

Issues to increase accuracy in

Sped Classification
Issue #1: Teacher referral is a strong
predictor of eligibility of SE services.
73-90% of students referred by teachers for

SE evaluations due to academic problems

are found eligible for services (Harry &
Klinger, 2006)

Possible Considerations
RTI : framework for delivering early intervention

services

providing evidence-based interventions

universal screening
multi-tiers of instructional strategies
problem-solving approach: proactive rather than
reactive
progress monitoring

Pre-referral process: SST

systematic process, evidence of interventions tried,

data collection, collaborative process

Teaching & curriculum: Explicit/direct teaching

methods with high quality curriculum

Knowledge: Provide GenEd teachers with
knowledge of Sped eligibility criteria, esp. in LD

Issues to increase accuracy

in Sped Classification
Issue #2: Certain minority populations
continue to be disproportionately
represented in Sped.
Teacher race/ethnicity:
18% of PK-12 teachers are people of color

(NEA, 2014); Fewer than 1 in 5 teachers are

non-white
2014-2015 year = 1st time that non-white
students represent a majority in US public
schools
Larry P. ruling, culturally-responsive

assessments

Possible Considerations
Culturally responsive teaching practices (Ladson-

Billings, 1994)

Teaching in a way that reflects diversity

encourages teachers to use their students identities

and backgrounds as valuable sources to inform

instruction and convey to students that they are
respected and genuinely expected to succeed (NEA,
2003).

Culturally responsive assessments

looking at norming group, validity, reliability of

standardized tests
consider additional assessment techniques: CBMs,
test-teach-test, in-direct sources of data (observ,
interviews, record reviews)
gathering extensive background history to provide a
context for the evaluation
use progress monitoring data from RtI

Possible Considerations
PBIS programs

pro-active strategies for teaching and supporting appropriate

school behaviors and creating positive school environment

decrease referral rates for behaviors (Horner & Sugai, 2000)

Classroom management: behavior = cultural difference or in

need of sped?

Asking for help might appear obvious to most students but not

to some children who have different cultural backgrounds

(Valdes,1996).
explicitly teach expected behavior through modeling and role
play can prevent problems down the road
Teachers need to create a classroom environment that
encourages positive behavior (Campbell-Whatley & Gardner III,
2002).
Increase Parent/Family and Community Partnerships

parents from diverse ethnic or cultural groups may not feel

comfortable or welcomed in their childrens schools (National

Association for Bilingual Education, 2002)

Issues to increase accuracy in

Sped Classification
Issue #3: Some eligibility categories exist on
a continuum rather than yes/no typology
Issue #4: Sped students encounter
stigmatization
Issue #5: Funding

Possible Solutions
Reschly (1996):
Goal = to enhance the quality of interventions and
improve outcomes for children and youth with
disabilities
the categories used should be as free as possible of
negative connotations; however, no disability
classification system will be completely free of negative
connotations
Reschly (1996) suggests:
Classification systems should be based on dimensions
of behavior (reading, social conduct, etc.) rather than on
typologies of persons. Typologies involving
dichotomies (LD vs. not LD) never accurate reflections
of the diversity of student aptitudes and achievement
broad dimensions (e.g. reading) with fine gradations for a

more accurate description of the child

4 funding variables: number of deficits, degree of
discrepancy, complexity of intervention, intensity of
intervention

Issues to increase accuracy in

Sped classification
Issue #6: Certain populations may be at
higher risk for poor educational outcomes
at a young age, which can contribute to
school referral rates
Before age 5, the foundation for strong literacy

skills & other academic learning is established

(Laosa, 2005)
Gaps in reading skills and knowledge that emerge
in 4th grade or later are often already present
when children begin school (NEA, 2007)

Possible Solutions
Access to programs that provide academic readiness skills
Quality early childhood experiences (National Research

Council, 2002)

Publicly funded preschool programs

family support
health services
sustained, high quality care and stimulation from birth

Early intervention services at school (National Research Council,

2002)

such as screenings from K-3 (e.g. Dibels), reading or math improvement

programs, study skills classes or counseling
First introduced in IDEA 2004, the early intervening services (EIS)
provision allows districts to spend up to 15 percent of their federal special
education funds to offer academic and behavioral supports for at-risk
general education students in order to help them succeed in the general
education setting. (NEA, 2007)

Issues to Increase Accuracy in

SpEd
Issue #7: Criteria implemented is
inconsistent by educators (e.g. SLD)
Schools psychs. can be creative when finding

a discrepancy & use inconsistent test practices:

(Truscott et. al, 2005)
Achievement: based on IQ global score, single

IQ subtests, IQ scales, a variety of IQ subtests, or

obsolete IQ tests
Discrepancy: calculated using standard scores,
grade equivalents, percentile ranks, etc.

Possible Solutions
The PCESE (2002) recommended that IQ and

IQ/achievement discrepancy calculations be

either reduced substantially or eliminated.
NASP: recommended LD criteria be replaced
with dual discrepancies: low achievement and
insufficient responses to research-based gen.
ed interventions for LD classification
Truscott et. al (2005) predict that the
discrepancy criteria will eventually disappear

Presidents Commission for Excellence in Education = PCESE

References
Antotiiou, F., Padeliadu, S., & Sideridis G. (2008). Teacher biases In the identification of learning disabilities: An
application of the logistic multilevel model. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(4), 199-209.
Bruchmller, K., Margraf, J., & Schneider, S. (2012). Is ADHD diagnosed in accord with diagnostic criteria?
Overdiagnosing and influence of client gender on diagnosis. Journal of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 80
(1), 128-138.
Campbell-Whatley, G.D., & Gardner III, R. (2002). Strategies and procedures for designing proactive intervention
with
culturally diverse populations of students with emotional or behavioral disorders and their families/caregivers.
Arlington, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
Connor, M. (2000). Asperger syndrome (Autistic Spectrum Disorder) and the self-reports of comprehensive
school students.
Educational Psychology in Practice, 16(3), 285-296.
Cullen, J. B. (2003). The impact of fiscal incentives on student disability rates. Journal of Public Economics, 87,
1557-1589.
Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B. W. and Wishner, J. (1994) Special Education in Urban America: Its Not
Justifiable For
Many, Journal of Special Education, 27, 45365.
Greene, J.P., & Forster, G. (2002). Effects of funding incentives on special education enrollment. Civic Report,
32, 6-16.
Greenway, C. (2000). Autism and Asperger Syndrome: Strategies to promote prosocial behaviors. Educational
Psychology
in Practice, 16(4), 469-486.
Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know
about
fidelity of implementation in schools?. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 181-193.
Harry, B., & Klinger, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education?: Understanding race and

References
Hessels, M. G. P. (1997). Low IQ but high learning potential: Why Zeyneb and Moussa do not belong in special
education. Educational and Child Psychology, 14(4), 121-136.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Lauchlan, F., & Boyle C. (2007). Is the use of labels in special education helpful? Support for Learning, 22(1), 3642.
McLaughlin, M.J., Dyson, A., Nagle, K., Thurlow, M., Rouse, M., Hardman, M., Norwich, B., Perlin, M. (2006).
Cross-cultural perspectives on the classification of children with disabilities: Part II implementing classification
systems in schools. The Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 46-58.
National Education Association. (2003). C.A.R.E.: Strategies for closing the achievement gaps. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Education Association. (2007). Truth in labeling: Disproportionality in special education. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Education Association. (2014) Time for a change: Diversity in teaching revisited. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Committee on Minority
Representation in Special Education, Donovan, M.S. and Cross, C. T. (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and
Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Pijanowski, J. (2012). Special education funding and the economy of influence in public schools. Journal of
Education
Policy. Spring, 2012.

References
Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002) A New Era: Revitalizing
Special Education for Children and Their Families. Jessup, MD: US Department of Education.
Regan, T., & Woods, K. (2000). Teachers understandings of dyslexia: Implications for
educational psychology practice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 16(3), 333-347.
Reschly, D. (1996). Identification and assessment of students with disabilities. Special Education for
Students with Disabilities, 6(1), 40-53.
Sciutto, M. J., & Eisenberg, M. (2007). Evaluating the evidence for and against the overdiagnosis
of ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 11, 106113. doi:10.1177/1087054707300094
Stetser, M., & Stillwell, R. (2014) Public high school four-year on-time graduation rates and event
dropout rates: School years 201011 and 201112. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education.
Shaywitz, S. E., Escobar, M. D., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1992). Distribution and temporal
stability of dyslexia in an epidemiological sample of 414 children followed longitudinally. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 145-150.
Truscott, S. D., Catanese, A. M., Abrams, L. M. (2005). The evolving context of special education
classification in the United States. School Psychology International, 26(2), 162-177.
Valdes, G. (1996). Con Respeto: Bridging the differences between culturally diverse families and schools.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Westwood, P. S. (2008). What teachers need to know about learning difficulties. Camberwell, Vic.
: ACER Press.
Zirkel, P. (2013). The trend in SLD enrollments and the role of RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
46(5), 473-479.